"Earlier this week Apple fired Scott Forstall, the architect of its iOS platform, and handed his duties over to the company's chief industrial designer, Jonathan Ive. Ive and Forstall had an infamously chilly working relationship, and one of their biggest disagreements was over the role of so-called 'skeuomorphic' design in Apple's products. Forstall, like his mentor Steve Jobs, favored it; Ive disliked it. To many observers, Forstall's forced exit looks like a vindication of Ive's stance. But if he wants to continue Apple's enviable trend of innovation, he'd be a fool to throw the baby of skeuomorphism out with Forstall's bathwater." Hoped for a thorough article on the benefits of skeuomorphism - got the age-old and intrinsically invalid excuse 'because it sells'. Windows isn't he best desktop operating system because it sells so well. Lady Gaga isn't the best artist because she sells a lot of records. This argument is never valid, has zero value, and adds nothing to what should be an interesting discussion.

This is a fallacy. The fact that someone pays for something does not mean it's necessarily the best for them.
It's like saying McDonalds is healthy food because people eat there a lot or that smoking is good for you because a lot of people buy cigarettes.

Did you honestly just compare using an OS to eating crappy food or smoking cigarettes? Does that mean that using OS X is equivalent to eating organic? Is using Linux the same as eating hot dogs and sausages? That analogy is broken in 19 different ways.

Did you honestly just compare using an OS to eating crappy food or smoking cigarettes?

No, I compared the way he came to the conclusion that it must be the best for them.
Windows may, or may not, be the best for them but it does not follow as a logical conclusion from the fact that they purchased it. Purchasing itself is not a measurement of how good a product is for you.

Many people use Microsoft's operating systems because at some level these operating systems work for them and they implicitly accept Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop space due to having no interest in who dominates this space and most probably being forced to use a Windows operating system itself; e.g. workplace only providing a Windows option and no flexibility for access to a Unix-related operating system. Obviously no person in that situation would be able to logically claim that one of these Windows operating systems is the "best" for them if they decided to adopt the "sheeple" attitude of blindly accepting a monopolist's product just because the monopolist's product exists in the market place (just in case the person made such a claim).